User talk:Logos-Word

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Logos-Word, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

October 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist) has been reverted.
Your edit here to Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/07/my-literary-resume.html, http://socrates58.blogspot.com/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Logos-Word (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I came in recently, for reasons explained last night on the "Talk" page for "Dave Armstrong" (which is me!). I'm completely innocent of any wrongdoing. As I explained last night on that page, I have committed a series of mistakes in learning the ropes of Wikipedia, as a rookie (for which I apologized twice). Once I was informed that it was improper to write a page about oneself, I immediately accepted that and complied. I was done anyway, in editing the page.

The page itself is not improper, since it was decided that it would not be deleted, after a week of considering that. "Durandus" suggested in discussions that the page be kept up. I thought he would continue modifying the entry (as I preferred not to, myself), but he didn't, and that was when I decided to enter into the controversy, for lack of anyone defending my status as a bone fide, published Catholic author and credentialed Catholic apologist (which is unquestionably true, whether or not I am deemed "notable" enough for Wikipedia inclusion). Similarity of perspective is not proof that two ostensibly separate individuals are the same person, engaging in "sock puppetry."

It all makes perfect sense, once you understand that it's difficult to learn the intricate layers of Wikipedia policies, which are a lot more complex thing than I understood at first (had no idea about all that, and I am very impressed indeed by the rigor and high standards). In any event, I have done nothing deliberately wrong, let alone with intent to deceive or abuse Wikipedia. I have many hundreds of people who can vouch for my character (4,500+ Facebook friends, longstanding e-mail list of nearly 1,000, etc.).

On the "Sockpuppet investigations/Durandus" page, "Coren" wrote: "The accounts are technically unrelated, and it doesn't look like proxies are involved." Then "AGK" wrote: ". . . I concur with Coren that these accounts appear unrelated. Nevertheless, the behaviour of each account at the AFD is adequate evidence of collusion. I am blocking both accounts as disruptive meat-puppets." So now mere agreement on whether a page should stay up is conspiratorial "collusion" and a sure sign of deliberate designs to screw up Wikipedia and violate its policies: worthy of blocking both parties?!

Thank you for letting me say my piece. Logos-Word 23:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I accept that Logos-Word gives a credible, honest explanation, though I would advise him to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest (COI) policy before editing Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist) and related pages. AGK [•] 16:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not going to comment on the unblock request, because I need to catch some sleep right now, but I'll recommend a couple things. 1, make everything one unblock request, 2 trim it down as much as you can, and 3 for god's sake, paragraph it. You'll stand a better chance of getting a fair review if you don't melt off admins' eyes with an Talmud-sized wall of text. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sock issues aside for a moment: are you saying that you're actively editing an article about yourself, other than the removal of WP:BLP-violating text? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to above: as I have already explained, I edited the piece because my status as an author was being misrepresented; the page was about to be deleted (later an admin decided it should stay up) and at the time no one else was correcting the errors being stated. So I went in, not knowing that this was considered improper. Now I know that, but understand that it is still accepted for someone to correct factual errors. None of this proves a deliberate attempt to subvert Wikipedia policies. I have apologized twice, and also revealed that I am who I am (Dave Armstrong) as soon as that became an issue, even though everyone else here seems to be totally anonymous. My ONLY concern all along was that my professional work not be misrepresented in a public venue. Now I've been waiting a week to see if I am to be blocked indefinitely or not, and to have an actual conversation with someone about the whole incident. Logos-Word 15:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLPEDIT is quite relevant here. I was not removing objectionable material. But I was adding acceptable bibliographical material (most of which still remains in the article) under the constant demand to produce it and claims that it didn't exist. This section calls for leniency for newbie mistakes. That's me! I've made all kinds of 'em. But (bottom line) none of these remotely establish "sock puppetry" or "meat puppetry." Logos-Word 15:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Dave, first let me say that this is your "actual conversation" on this - you would be well-advised to understand Wikipedia policy during this "break". (One of the key ones might be the difference between "infinite" [forever] and "indefinite" [until the community is convinced that there will be no further problems]). I've taken a lot of time to go over the incident and the variety of actions that took place. Based on what I see, I agree that WP:SOCK may not be the case, but based on a few things I am not convinced that some form of off-Wikipedia discussion has not taken place. This may have included e-mails, online fora, or even someone that you know in person. As such, I'm convinced that a block for WP:MEAT is indeed not inappropriate.
While we take great care to advise editors about WP:COI, WP:PROMO, and WP:AUTOBIO, and that generally an editor should never ever edit an article about themselves or their company (depending on the situation), there are the rare cases where the removal of unreferenced WP:BLP-violating material may be permitted. Otherwise, editors with such COI are advised to discuss potential changes with appropriate sources on the article talkpage - as you are a "primary source", that's not typically acceptable for additions to a BLP - it must have appropriate third party references.
Like myself, you are a person of faith. If based on the tenets of that faith, you can honestly state that you are 100% certain that you have never had off-Wikipedia communication with Durandus or any other editor in relation to this article, and that you will abide fully by the restrictions on articles about yourself that are noted above, then I might be willing to remove this block so that you can edit other areas of Wikipedia, following all policies. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, BWilkins, for the time and consideration you have taken, and I do agree that this is a "real" conversation. I appreciate it. I don't plan on ever actually editing the article about me again (already stated that before), and probably not much on other articles on Wikipedia, though I might at some point correct something in a theological article (because that is my area). If there is a falsehood or distortion in my entry, I'll only comment on it on the Talk page. I have no complaints whatever about any editing after my involvement with it, and appreciate that "refining" work.

As for your questions, I'll be totally honest, as I have been all along. I merely replied to "Durandus" when he asked me to send him a list of the books I have had published with "official" publishers. That was because the initial person who put up the page (whoever he is) had posted all my books: many of which are indeed self-published (with Lulu). Then it became a big controversy, that I was supposedly only self-published (which is frowned upon in the world of authors and quite obviously at Wikipedia, too), and not "notable" and all the rest. Durandus wanted to list my "official" works. On the present page, only books and articles that were published by independent publishers or periodicals are listed (because I made sure of that myself, to overcome that groundless objection).

I didn't know "Durandus" from Adam up till that time. He likely knew who I was, from my books, and was trying to help me, by correcting the article. His removal of the descriptive section at the top (that only admins should do, right?) was, far as I can tell, what got him in trouble, and blocked. I had nothing to do with that, or any knowledge of it beforehand whatsoever, and in charity (that's part of the Christian faith, too), I assume that he was simply ignorant that it shouldn't be done.

I don't know the person who first put up the page at all, nor anyone else who added material from a "pro" or neutral perspective, nor any who were more "hostile" to it in a general sense. I don't know anyone involved in this whole mess, in person, or even online. I don't know who you are. Everyone has a nickname. But everyone knows who I am because I was honest enough to admit it as soon as it became an issue (I've always despised Internet nicks anyway). Once Durandus stopped posting (or was blocked, as I learned many days later), I went in to add some material, under the deadline of the page possibly being taken down. I only did it (and reluctantly) because no one else was doing it and correcting the record against bogus charges being made. This is the crucial thing to understand about my motivation and goals (and related to the false charges made against me).

Nothing I've done proves that I am a "sock puppet." You yourself are inclined to agree that this is not the case, but persist with a suspicion of my being a "meat puppet." Well, if providing a list of my books to a person who asks me (I receive many hundreds of letters every month, and answer as best I can, out of courtesy) constitutes that, then I am "guilty," but I think it's ridiculous. Folks have a life outside of Wikipedia. It's pretty absurd to be accused basically of being a bald-faced liar, and a person who tries to deliberately deceive and refuse to comply with rules, because I made some "newbie" mistakes and didn't realize that the rules were as complex and multi-layered as they are. But I did not knowingly do anything wrong (swear to God; swear on a stack of Bibles). Whatever I did wrong was based on ignorance of the many rules.

In summary, then: I didn't start the page about myself, had never written a single word on Wikipedia up till a few weeks ago (nor did I have the slightest desire to do so), didn't know that someone started up a page till I ran across it by accident in a Google search, didn't know "Durandus" at all, or anyone else involved in this, and simply answered a question about my books. It's a matter of perfect indifference to me whether there is a page about my work or not. That's why this whole charge is so silly. It wasn't necessary for me to be successful in my career and it won't be now. My SOLE concern was that if the page is gonna be displayed in public, that it be accurate.

No one can fault me for that. Writers are understandably highly concerned about how their work is presented to many thousands of people in a public venue. If the page was inaccurate, my preference would be that it didn't exist at all, rather than be up with falsehoods, half-truths, and distortions. But as it is, I think the article is fine. It is all this business behind the scenes that I had a problem with.

Thanks again for your time. Someone will probably say I wrote too much again (seems to be another theme and pet peeve around here). Fine. Live with it. I had to explain this stuff and it takes some ink. One can't briefly make a defense against false charges. I can't just say, "I didn't do it." I gotta splain . . . Logos-Word 17:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Dave, although a decision won't solely rest on it, I have approached the blocking admin for their comments on the above - I believe they will be germane to the situation. Good thing there's no rush :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BWilkins, thank you for contacting me about this block. Logos-Word, thank you for your detailed explanation. I am happy to accept that you are not using both this account and User:Durandus to edit your biography, and that I was wrong to suspect you were engaging in what Wikipedia calls "sock- or meat-puppetry". I have therefore unblocked your account. I will not unblock Durandus unless that editor submits his or her own appeal. AGK [•] 16:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much to both of you. I'm grateful for your time and consideration and the rapid decision to unblock my account, and apologize again for all the problems I caused due to my lack of understanding of the rules in their totality. It's good that they are there. I'm quite impressed with the whole thing and will continue to be a strong advocate of Wikipedia and its governing philosophy (more than ever now). Logos-Word 23:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome, and thank you for your kind words. I just noticed that I did not say sorry that you were wrongly blocked, so please accept my apologies for this case of mistaken identity. I hope you enjoy your Wikipedia experience from here on in. Happy editing! AGK [•] 19:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Your signature doesn't seem to link to your user or user talk page, so you might want to read Wikipedia:Signature before you make any more signed comments. Regards, AGK [•] 19:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problems or hard feelings. Thanks again. I signed with four tildes, just as I will do for this comment. Maybe the non-link has to do with the unblocking process? Logos-Word 20:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Testing to see if my nick links. Logos-Word 15:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Logos-Word&oldid=1079470133"